335.8 
Z36r 

Sigmund  Zeisler.   Reminiscences  of 
—  the  Anarchist  Case.    (1927) 


,.o>s  «.**-"" 


UNIVERSITY  OF 

ILLINOIS  LIBRARY 

AT  URBANA-CHA,V:PAIGN 


REMINISCENCES  OF  THE 
ANARCHIST  CASE 


REMINISCENCES 

OF  THE 

ANARCHIST  CASE 

Bt 

SIGMUND  ZEISLER 


THE  CHICAGO  LITERARY  CLUB 

1927 


REMINISCENCES  OF  THE  ANARCHIST 
CASE 

Tomorrow  night'  it  will  be  forty  years  since  what  has  be- 
come known  as  the  Anarchist  Case  had  its  origin  in  the  throw- 
ing of  a  dNTiamite  bomb  and  the  killing  or  wounding  of  a  large 
number  of  poUcemen  at  a  meeting  of  workingmen  in  Chicago. 
>  The  judge  presiding  at  the  trial,  all  the  twelve  jurors,  all  the 
•    counsel  for  the  state,  all  the  counsel  for  the  defense  except  my- 
self, all  the  police  officials  who  were  active  in  the  investigation 
and  at  the  trial,  all  the  seven  justices  of  the  Supreme  Court  of 
Illinois  which  reviewed  and  affirmed  the  judgment  of  the 
criminal  court  of  Cook  County,  all  the  nine  justices  of  the 
Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States  which  was  appealed  to 
r  for  a  writ  of  error  but  declined  to  interfere,  are  dead.    Of 
»  the  eight  defendants,  four  were  executed,  one  committed 
;   suicide  in  jail  the  day  before  he  was  to  have  been  executed, 
and  three,  after  sen-ing  in  the  penitentiary'  for  six  j'^ears,  were 
pardoned,  but  have  long  since  died.  Thus,  of  all  the  prominent 
actors  in  that  thrilUng  drama,  I  am  the  sole  survivor. 

Many  is  the  time  that  I  have  been  asked  to  write  my  remi- 
niscences of  that  cause  celebre  and  incidentally  to  correct  vari- 
ous misstatements  which  have  crept  into  pubUshed  accounts 
of  it,  even  in  standard  works  of  history.  For  one  reason  or 
another  I  have  always  postponed  it.  But  advancing  years 
prompt  the  thought  that,  if  I  am  ever  to  do  it,  I  ought  not 

1  May  4,  1926. 


further  to  delay.  I  am  happy  to  find  that  my  recollection  of  the 
events  of  which  I  am  about  to  speak  has  not  been  much  dun- 
med  by  the  lapse  of  time;  and  I  am  certain  that  in  the  mean- 
time my  perspective  has  become  clearer  and  my  views  as  to 
the  justice  of  the  decision,  the  management  of  the  case  by  the 
representatives  of  the  state,  and  the  conduct  of  the  presiding 
judge  have  become  more  trustworthy. 

I  wish  it  understood  that  I  do  not  undertake  to  record 
here  all  my  reminiscences  or  to  give  more  than  an  outUne  of 
the  salient  features  of  the  case;  to  do  so  would  require  far  more 
space  than  is  at  my  disposal.  But  let  us  in  medias  res. 

On  May  1,  1886,  a  strike  of  the  organized  workingmen  for 
an  eight  hour  day  with  ten  hours  pay  was  inaugurated  in 
Chicago  and  in  many  other  industrial  centers  of  the  country. 
The  employers  quite  generally  resisted  these  demands.  Many 
clashes  occurred  between  strikers  and  scabs.  On  the  afternoon 
of  May  3rd,  August  Spies,  editor  of  the  Arbeiter  Zeitung,  a 
labor  paper  with  strong  anarchistic  tendencies,  addressed  a 
large  meeting  of  striking  lumber  shovers  held  in  the  open  about 
three  or  four  blocks  from  the  McCormick  Reaper  Works.  He 
had  not  finished  speaking,  when  the  bell  at  the  McCormick 
plant  rang.  A  portion  of  the  crowd  nearest  the  plant  com- 
menced to  move  towards  it,  attacked  a  group  of  men  coming 
from  work  and  threw  stones  at  the  windows  of  the  factory. 
A  number  of  poUcemen  came  to  the  rescue,  using  clubs  and 
revolvers  against  the  crowd,  many  of  whom  were  unarmed  and 
fleeing  from  the  spot.  One  of  the  strikers  was  killed  and  a 
nmnber  were  wounded.  All  this  was  witnessed  by  Mr.  Spies. 
He  went  down  town  to  liis  office  in  great  excitement  and  there 
composed  and  caused  to  be  printed  a  circular  reading  as  fol- 
lows: 

"Woekingmen!    To  Arms! 

"Your  masters  sent  out  their  bloodhounds — the  police — they 
killed  six  of  your  brothers  at  McCormick's  this  afternoon.  They 
killed  the  poor  wretches,  because  they,  like  you,  had  courage  to 


disobey  the  supreme  will  of  your  boBBes.  They  killed  Uiem  becauM 
they  dared  ask  fur  the  sliortening  of  the  hours  of  toil.  They  killed 
them  to  sliow  you  'free  American  citizens'  that  you  must  be  satis- 
fied and  contented  with  whatever  your  bosses  condescend  to 
allow  you,  or  you  will  ^et  killeti! 

"Vciu  have  for  years  cndunnl  the  most  abject  humiliations; 
you  have  for  years  sufTereti  immeasurable  iniquities;  you  have 
worked  yourselves  to  death;  you  have  enduretl  tl»e  panRS  of  want 
and  hunger;  your  children  you  have  sacrificed  to  the  factorj*  lords 
— in  short,  you  have  been  miserable  and  ol)edient  slaves  all  these 
years.  Why?  To  satisfy  the  insatial)Ie  Rreed  and  fill  the  coffers  of 
jrour  hizy,  thieving  master!  When  you  ask  him  now  to  lessen  your 
burden,  he  sends  his  bliKnlhounds  out  to  shoot  you,  kill  you! 

"If  you  are  men,  if  you  are  the  sons  of  your  urandsiros,  who 
have  shed  their  l)l<xKi  to  frt>e  you,  then  you  will  rise  in  your  might, 
Hercules,  and  destroy  the  hideous  monster  that  seeks  to  destroy 
you. 

"To  arms,  wc  call  you,  to  annsl 

"Your  Bbothbrs." 

The  statement  in  the  circular  that  six  workingnien  had 
been  killed  was  based  upon  a  report  to  this  effect  in  a  late 
edition  of  the  Chicago  Daily  A'eu«. 

This  circular  was  distributed  that  night,  princii)ally  at 
different  labor  meetings. 

On  May  4,  the  following  circular  was  widely  distributed: 

"Attention,  Workingmen!  Great  mass  meeting  tonight  at 
7:30  o'clock  at  the  Ilaymarket,  Randolph  Street,  between  Des 
Plaines  and  Halsted.  Good  8[)eaker8  will  be  present  to  denounce 
the  latest  atrocious  act  of  the  poUce,  the  shooting  of  our  fellow 
workmen  yesterday  afternoon. 

The  Executive  Committee." 

The  advertised  meeting  was  slow  in  gathering  and  did  not 
start  until  half  past  eight.  The  highest  number  of  people  pres- 
ent at  any  time  during  its  progress  was  variously  estimated 
at  from  1 ,000  to  3,000.  Among  these  was  a  liberal  sprinkling  of 
women.  Owing  to  its  small  size  the  meeting  was  not  held  at 

7 


the  very  spacious  Haymarket  proper,  though  it  has  ever  since 
been  spoken  of  as  the  Haymarket  meeting,  but  about  half 
a  block  north  of  the  east  end  of  it  on  Desplaines  Street  be- 
tween Randolph  and  Lake  Streets.  There  an  empty  truck 
wagon,  standing  close  to  the  entrance  into  a  private  alley, 
known  as  Crane's  Alley,  was  requisitioned  for  a  speakers' 
stand  by  Mr.  Spies,  who  called  the  meeting  to  order. 

The  poUce  had  seen  the  call  for  the  meeting  and  also  the 
Revenge  circular.  As  there  was  great  excitement  in  the  ranks 
of  the  strikers,  the  poKce  expected  a  very  largely  attended 
meeting  and  thought  best  to  be  prepared  to  intervene  in  case 
it  should  result  in  disorders  or  excesses.  For  that  purpose  180 
poUcemen  were  kept  at  the  Desplaines  Street  Police  Station, 
less  than  one  hundred  yards  from  the  place  of  the  meeting. 
Reserves  were  also  held  in  various  outlying  poUce  stations. 

Carter  Harrison,  the  elder,  at  that  time  mayor  of  Chicago, 
attended  the  meeting  and  went  into  the  thick  of  the  crowd, 
intending  in  case  of  necessity  to  make  his  presence  known  and 
order  the  meeting  to  disperse. 

August  Spies  was  the  first  speaker.  He  was  followed  at 
about  nine  o'clock  by  Albert  R.  Parsons,  editor  of  The  Alarm, 
an  anarchistic  periodical  pubhshed  in  the  EngUsh  language. 
During  his  speech  which  lasted  about  an  hour  and  was  largely 
devoted  to  figures  and  statistics,  many  people  left.  Mayor 
Harrison,  having  failed  to  notice  the  sUghtest  sign  of  danger 
of  disorder,  stepped  into  the  Desplaines  Street  Station,  told 
Inspector  Bonfield  his  impression  of  the  meeting,  and  advised 
that  the  policemen  held  in  reserv-e  at  that  station  and  at  the 
outljdng  stations  be  released  for  their  ordinary  duties.  The 
mayor  then  returned  to  the  meeting.  Parsons  was  still  talking, 
but  evidently  approaching  a  close.  There  was  still  no  symptom 
of  threatening  trouble  and  the  mayor  went  home. 

The  last  speaker  was  Samuel  Fielden,  a  stone  teamster  and 
well-known  labor  orator.  The  character  of  the  meeting  in  no 
wise  changed  during  his  speech.  None  of  the  speeches  pro- 

8 


posed  or  hinted  at  any  violence  or  force  to  be  resorted  to  that 
night.  All  of  them  were  the  oniinar>'  mouthinRs  of  cominuiiis- 
tic  labor  agitators,  but  were  tame  compared  to  many  previous 
ones  made  by  the  same  men  for  ^'ears  at  Sunday  meetings  held 
on  the  Lake  Front,  in  Chicago,  and  still  more  tame  when  com- 
pared to  the  oditoriiik  which  hud  ajiiwircd  in  the  columns  of 
the  Arbciter  Zeituttg  and  The  Alarm. 

When  Ficlden  l)egan  to  s])eak,  dark  threatening  clouds 
gathered  and  a  light  rain  began  to  come  down.  Shortly  there- 
after Parsons  projwsed  an  adjournment  to  a  nearby  hall  on 
Lake  Street,  and  Fielden  replied:  "I  shall  be  through  in  a  few 
minutes  and  then  we'll  all  go  home."  But  Parson.s,  his  wife 
and  a  woman  friend,  as  well  as  a  good  part  of  the  remaining 
crowd,  left,  and  in  a  short  while  the  meeting  dwindled  to  about 
300  people.  It  was  just  alK)ut  to  dissolve  and  Mr.  Fielden  had 
said,  "In  conclu.«:ion,"  when  a  platoon  of  jwlice  al)out  180  men 
strong,  led  by  Insi)ector  Bonfield  and  Captain  Ward,  having 
marched  quickly  from  the  pohce  station,  halted  witliin  a  few 
yards  of  the  speakers'  wagon.  Captain  Ward  raised  his  arm, 
club  in  hand,  and  said :  "In  the  name  of  the  i)eoi)le  of  the  state 
of  Ilhnois  I  command  you  to  disi>erse."  In  the  stillness  that 
followed  this  command  Mr.  Fielden  said:  "Why,  ca})tain,  tliis 
is  a  peaceable  meeting!"  At  that  moment  a  d>^lamite  bomb, 
hurled  by  an  unidentified  person,  landed  in  the  ranks  of  the 
pohce  and  cau.<*ed  havoc.  The  pohce  needed  no  command  be- 
fore firing  and  were  answered  by  shots  from  the  crowd,  which, 
however,  the  next  instant  fled  in  terror.  Fielden  and  the  other 
men  on  the  wagon  had  meanwhile  scrambled  down  and  made 
their  escape  as  best  they  could.  One  poUceman  was  killed 
immediately,  six  were  mortally,  and  about  fifty  others  more 
or  less  seriousl)',  wounded. 

This  storj',  dressed  up,  to  be  sure,  in  the  best  manner  of 
the  reportorial  artist,  stared  at  me  from  the  front  page  of  the 
newspapers  on  the  morning  of  May  5th.  They  also  stated  that 
this  was  the  finst  time  dynamite  had  been  used  in  this  country 

9 


for  the  destruction  of  human  Ufe;  that  a  dragnet  had  been 
spread  for  all  known  members  of  anarchistic  societies;  that 
dozens  of  them  had  been  arrested  during  the  night;  that  the 
authorities  were  determined  to  make  an  example  of  their  lead- 
ers so  as  to  stamp  out  sociahsm,  communism  and  anarchism  in 
America. 

Of  the  three  speakers  at  the  meeting  I  knew  only  Mr. 
Spies.  I  had  met  him  once  some  months  pre^^ously  when  he 
had  called  at  my  law  office  to  retain  my  partner,  Mr.  Salomon, 
to  defend  the  Arbeiter  Zeitung  in  a  Ubel  suit.  IVIr.  Salomon  was 
the  attorney  for  the  Central  Labor  Union  of  Chicago  and  in 
this  capacity  had  become  well  acquainted  with  Mr.  Spies.  On 
the  occasion  of  this  call  I  had  had  a  few  minutes'  conversation 
with  him.  My  impression  was  rather  favorable.  He  was  a 
handsome,  weU-built  man  of  medium  height,  about  thirty 
years  old,  pale  and  clean-shaven  except  for  a  blond  mustache. 
He  was  quiet,  mild-mannered,  neatly  dressed.  His  well-shaped 
head  was  crowned  by  a  fine  growth  of  blond  hair.  I  had  heard' 
him  spoken  of  as  an  anarchist,  but  he  did  not  look  the  part. 

Walking  to  my  office  on  that  morning  of  May  5th,  I  passed 
many  groups  of  people,  standing  on  street  corners  or  in  the 
middle  of  sidewalks,  whose  excited  conversations  about  the 
events  of  the  preceding  night  I  could  not  fail  to  overhear. 
Everybody  assumed  that  the  speakers  at  the  meeting  and 
other  labor  agitators  were  the  perpetrators  or  instigators  of  the 
horrible  crime.  "Hang  them  first  and  try  them  afterwards" 
was  an  expression  which  I  heard  repeatedly.  It  seemed  to  me 
that  the  air  was  charged  with  anger,  fear  and  hatred.  I  myself 
was  shocked  beyond  words. 

I  had  hardly  reached  my  office  when  the  telephone  rang. 
I  answered  the  call.  Someone,  speaking  veiy  hurriedly  and 
excitedly,  said  Mr.  Spies  had  been  arrested  at  the  Arbeiter 
Zeitung  office  and  been  taken  to  the  Central  PoHce  Station  at 
the  City  Hall,  and  that  Mr.  Salomon  should  come  over  there 
at  once. 

10 


Mr.  Salomon  lost  no  time  in  obeying  this  summons.  He 
returned  in  an  hour.  He  told  me  that  besides  Mr.  Spies,  Mr. 
Michael  Schwab,  associate  editor  of  the  Arbeiter  Zeihmg,  and 
Mr.  Samuel  Fielden  were  being  held  at  police  headquarters. 
They  had  been  arrested  without  warrant  and  no  charge  had 
been  booked  again.st  them.  Tliey  wanted  our  firm  to  look  after 
their  interests.  Mr.  Salomon  said  that  all  three  men  had  as- 
sured him  that  they  were  in  no  wise  implicated  in  the  throwing 
of  tiie  bomb. 

We  immediately  j^repared  a  iietition  for  a  WTit  of  habeas 
con^us  and  Mr.  Salomon  went  out  to  i)rcsent  it  to  a  judge.  He 
had  barely  left  witli  the  i)etition  when  I  was  called  upon  by  a 
man  who  introduced  himself  as  Rudolph  Schnaubelt,  a  broth- 
er-in-law of  Michael  Schwab.  He  decUned  the  chair  which  I 
ofifered  him,  saying  he  was  in  a  hurr>'.  He  was  a  huge  fellow, 
about  six  feet  three  inches  high  and  weighing,  I  judged,  about 
225  pounds.  He  towered  over  me  as  I  was  sitting  at  my  desk. 
He  had  blond  hair  and  a  full  beard  and  mustache  of  the  same 
color.  His  exterior  was  that  of  a  gentleman.  He  told  me  he 
had  been  at  the  HajTiiarket  meeting,  but  that  Schwab  had  not 
been  there;  he  could  not  understand  why  Schwab  was  held  by 
the  police ;  that  Schwab  was  as  gentle  as  a  dove  and  would  not 
hurt  a  fly.  He  also  spoke  about  Mr.  Spies  who,  he  said,  had  a 
heart  as  big  as  the  courthouse.  He  said  that  both  Spies  and 
Schwab,  though  talking  and  writing  a  lot  of  incendiary  stuff, 
lacked  the  courage  to  handle  a  bomb.  He  said  that  he  was  an 
anarchist  and  knew  all  the  active  anarchists  in  Chicago;  some 
of  them,  he  thought,  would  have  the  courage  all  right,  but 
none  of  them  had  been  at  the  Hajanarket  meeting.  He  also 
told  me  that  the  meeting  had  been  perfectly'  orderly  and  peace- 
able; that  the  poUce — to  whom  he  referred  as  beasts  and 
bloodhounds — had  apparently  come  to  precipitate  a  row,  and 
the  throwing  of  the  bomb  served  them  right.  As  he  uttered '' 
these  words  his  upper  body  swayed  slightly  forward  and  liis 
clinched  fist  came  down  as  though  to  strike  my  table,  but  was 

11 


suddenly  arrested  in  midair.  He  was  visibly  wrought  up  but 
had  himself  under  perfect  control.  His  "^dsit  lasted  less  than 
fifteen  minutes.  On  leaving  he  said  he  would  call  again. 

Mr.  Salomon  soon  returned  to  the  office  with  the  news  that 
a  coroner's  inquest  was  to  be  held  in  the  afternoon;  also  that 
the  poHce  had  scoured  the  city  for  Parsons  but  could  not 
locate  him;  he  had  fled  or  was  hiding;  and  further,  that  one 
Adolph  Fischer,  a  compositor  of  the  Arbeiter  Zeitung,  had  been 
arrested;  a  file  ground  sharp  to  an  edge,  a  revolver  and  a  ful- 
minating cap  had  been  found  on  him. 

While  Mr.  Salomon  was  attending  the  inquest,  a  number 
of  people  who  had  been  at  the  Hajonarket  meeting  called  and 
gave  me  their  versions  of  the  happenings  there,  particularly 
the  circumstances  surrounding  the  throwing  of  the  bomb. 
Their  stories  differed  materially  from  the  accounts  in  the  news- 
./  papers.  A  lot  of  policemen  had  been  quoted  to  the  effect  that, 
when  the  poUce  had  approached  the  speaker's  stand,  Fielden 
had  shouted,  "Here  come  the  bloodhounds  of  the  police!  Men, 
do  your  dutj'^  and  I  will  do  mine" ;  also  that  at  the  moment  the 
bomb  burst,  Fielden  and  numerous  men  in  the  crowd  had 
started  shooting  at  the  poUce.  All  my  callers  denied  the  truth 
of  these  accounts.  I  carefully  took  down  their  names  and 
statements.  During  the  following  weeks  I  had  similar  inter- 
views with  dozens  of  people,  among  them  many  who  were 
neither  worldngmen  nor  sympathizers  of  the  anarchists,  but 
had  been  at  the  meeting  merely  from  curiosity  and  were 
prompted  by  a  sense  of  justice  to  teU  me  what  they  had  ob- 
served. 

Late  on  the  evening  of  May  5th,  the  coroner's  jury  re- 
turned its  verdict,  holding  all  the  prisoners  responsible  for  the 
murder  of  Mathias  J.  Degan,  the  first  of  the  policemen  to  die, 
and  binding  them  over  to  the  grand  jury. 

On  May  7th  I  had  another  call  from  Rudolph  Schnaubelt. 
At  first  I  did  not  recognize  him,  as  he  was  without  a  beard. 
He  said  he  had  been  arrested  that  morning  and  quizzed  and 

12 


sweated  at  the  Central  Police  Station;  that  the  police  had 

found  out  he  was  Schwab's  hrothcr-iii-law  ami  had  l»et>ii  on 
and  near  tlie  sjH'akt'rs'  wagon  during  the  Hayniarket  nieetitjg; 
he  had,  however,  accounted  for  his  movements  and  the  police 
had  no  evidence  against  him,  so  they  had  to  lot  him  go.  He 
added,  "I  don't  see  that  I  can  do  any  good  to  my  friends  here, 
and  the  way  things  are  gding  1  believe  it  would  be  better  for 
me  to  get  out  of  Chicago  for  a  time." 

I  have  mentioned  these  visits  of  Schnaubelt's  because  of 
the  determined  but,  as  I  sliall  show  hereafter,  abortive  efforts 
of  the  state  at  the  trial  to  convince  the  jurj-  that  he  was  the 
bomb  tlu"ower.  Api)arently  Schnaubelt  lias  never  returned  to 
Chicago.  At  any  rate  1  have  never  seen  him  again. 

On  May  11th  I  had  another  interesting  visitor.  It  was 
Gottfried  Waller  who  subsequently  became  a  star  witness  for 
the  state  at  the  trial,  lie  was  a  line-looking  fellow  with  black 
hair  and  beard  and  spoke  good  German,  but  no  English.  His 
wife  had  reported  to  hun  that  two  men  whom  she  took  to  be 
detectives,  had  inquired  for  him  on  two  occasions.  He  was 
afraid  that  he  would  be  arrested  and  therefore  wanted  us  to 
know  what  he  had  to  tell.  He  was  a  member  of  the  Interna- 
tional Workingmen's  Association — to  wliich  I  shall  hereinafter 
refer  as  the  International — and  belonged  to  one  of  the  several 
groups  of  that  organization  in  Chicago.  Each  of  these  groups 
had  an  armed  section  whose  members  met  at  Greif's  Hall,  54 
West  Lake  Street,  for  the  purjiose,  among  others,  of  drilling 
and  to  be  instructed  in  the  use  of  fireanns  and  the  manufacture 

of  explosives,  whenever  the  words  "Y.  Come night" 

appeared  under  the  heading  of  "Letter-Box"  in  the  columns 
of  the  Arbeitcr  Zcilung;  that  pursuant  to  such  an  advertise- 
ment he  went  to  such  a  meeting  on  the  night  of  May  3rd.  It 
was  attended  by  about  fifty  men,  including  Schnaubelt,  one 
George  Engel  and  Adolph  Fischer.  Some  copies  of  the  Re- 
venge circular  were  brought  there  and  its  contents  were  dis- 
cussed. Waller  was  chairman  of  the  meeting.  Engel  proposed 

13 


that  the  members  of  the  armed  sections  should  be  provided 
with  dynamite  bombs  and  prepared  to  come  to  the  aid  of 
strikers  in  case  they  were  again  attacked  by  the  poUce;  that 
in  case  a  conflict  with  the  poUce  should  assume  considerable 
dimensions,  or,  as  Waller  put  it  in  another  version,  if  a  revolu- 

V  tion  should  break  out,  the  German  word  "Ruhe"  (meaning 
quiet,  rest)  should  be  pubUshed  under  the  heading  "Letter- 
Box"  in  the  Arbeiter  Zeitung;  this  would  be  a  signal  for  the 
armed  men  to  meet  at  points  to  be  agreed  upon  by  each  group 
in  the  different  sections  of  the  citj^;  that  a  committee,  consist- 
ing of  two  men  from  each  of  the  three  sections  should  observ^e 
the  movements  in  the  city  and,  in  case  a  conflict  should  occur, 
the  committee  should  get  word  to  the  armed  men  who  should 
then  attack  the  various  poHce  stations  with  bombs  so  as  to 
prevent  rescue  parties  from  reaching  the  places  of  conflict  in 

y/  the  city.  This  proposal  was  accepted.  Upon  Waller's  sugges- 
tion it  was  then  decided  that  a  meeting  be  held  on  the  evening 
of  May  4th  at  the  Haymarket  to  protest  against  the  action  of 
the  pohce  at  the  McCormick  riot.  Fischer  was  commissioned 
to  call  this  meeting  by  means  of  handbills  to  be  printed. 

It  required  no  particular  acumen  for  me  to  reaUze  the 
significance  which  the  state  would  attach  to  this  meeting  of 
the  armed  groups.  It  did,  in  fact,  become  the  pivotal  point  in 
the  state's  theory  that  the  throwing  of  the  bomb  at  the  Hay- 
market  meeting  was  the  direct  result  of  the  conspiracy  formed 
at  the  Greif 's  Hall  meeting,  and  that  the  latter  again  was  an 
outgrowth  of  the  purposes  and  teachings  of  the  International, 
of  which  aU  the  defendants  were  members,  in  whose  revolu- 
tionary propaganda  they  had  been  more  or  less  actively  en- 
gaged and  which  in  itself  was  a  gigantic  conspiracy  to  over- 
throw the  law.  Of  course,  I  also  did  not  fail  to  reahze  that  the 
state  would  have  to  estabhsh  a  connection  between  the  bomb- 
thrower  and  the  Greif's  Hall  conspiracy.  I  therefore  asked 
Waller  many  questions  upon  this  point  and  found  out  that  he 
did  not  know  and  would  not  even  venture  a  guess  as  to  who 

14 


threw  the  bomb;  that  the  Hft>7nnrket  meeting  was  intended 
solely  as  a  protest  assembly;  that  neither  Sj)ie.s,  Schwab,  Field- 
en  nor  Parsons  was  a  member  of  an  anned  group;  that  nothing 
had  been  said  about  preparations  for  rej^isting  any  attack  by 
the  jKilice  at  the  Hayniarket;  none  such  wai<  exiK'ct*"*]  mid, 
with  the  exception  of  the  committee  of  observ'atiun,  tl»e  men 
were  not  to  attend  that  meeting.  Tliis  inter\icw  became  of 
great  value,  when  it  fell  to  my  lot  to  cross-examine  Waller  at 
the  trial. 

On  May  17th  the  regular  grand  jury  for  the  month  was 
convened.  Judge  John  Ci.  Ilogers  instructed  it  on  the  law  aj)- 
pUcable  to  the  HajTuarket  crime.  He  was  a  dignified,  elderly 
gentleman  of  excellent  reputation,  well-hked  and  highly 
thought  of  by  tlie  bar.  His  charge  was  ba.sed  upou  the  hyj)o- 
thesis  of  the  truth  of  the  newspaper  re|>orts,  and  ujMjn  that 
basis  it  seemed  to  be  correct  and  fair.  Our  clients,  however, 
were  quite  excited  about  it  and  insisted  tiiat  Judge  Rogers  was 
prejudiced  and  would  not  give  them  a  fair  trial. 

The  grand  jur>',  comi)osed  largely  of  outstanding  business 
men,  had  been  obtained  by  a  special  venire  and  was  ])lainly 
handpicked.  One  of  the  jurors  was  a  banker  by  the  name  of 
E.  S.  Ureyer,  who,  Spies  told  me,  was  his  personal  enemy. 
Some  years  after  the  conviction  of  the  anarchists  I  became 
well  acquainted  \\ith  him.  He  frequently  discussed  the  case 
with  me  and  several  times  manifested  deep  emotion  in  exjjress- 
ing  his  sorrow  over  its  outcome  and  liis  participation  in  the 
work  of  the  grand  jur>'.  After  John  P.  Altgeld  had  become 
governor  of  the  state,  Mr.  Dreyer  was  the  most  active  of  the 
many  citizens  who  sought  a  pardon  for  the  three  anarchists 
who  had  sun-ived  and  were  serving  their  sentences  in  the 
penitentiar)'. 

The  rounding  up  of  persons  suspected  of  comi)Ucity  in  the 
HajTnarket  crime  and  of  persons  suspected  of  sympathy  with 
the  prisoners  continued  fully  as  active  after  the  convening  of 
the  grand  jur}'  as  it  had  been  since  the  night  of  May  4th. 

15 


Raids  and  arrests  were  made  daily.  Among  those  who  were 
held  incommunicado  and  without  warrant  were  Adolph  Fisch- 
er, George  Engel,  William  Seliger  and  Louis  Lingg,  all  of  whom 
were  later  indicted.  An  apparatus  supposed  to  be  used  in  the 
manufacture  of  bombs  had  been  found  in  Engel's  home.  In 
Lingg's  room  the  poUce  had  found  a  miniature  bomb  factory. 
Seliger  was  Lingg's  landlord  and  his  assistant  in  the  making  of 
bombs. 

Captain  Michael  Schaack,  in  charge  of  the  Chicago 
Avenue  PoUce  Station,  became  the  leading  spirit  in  the  investi- 
gation and  hugely  enjoyed  being  in  the  Umehght.  He  was 
corpulent,  pompous,  inordinately  vain  and  not  overscrupulous. 
In  conjunction  with  Assistant  State's  Attorney  Edmund 
Furthman  he  conducted  a  sweating  shop  at  his  police  station. 
He  gave  information  of  his  doings  to  the  reporters  only  spar- 
ingly, allowing  them  to  work  their  imaginations  overtime. 
Their  gossip  and  guesses,  all  in  the  shape  of  statements  of  fact, 
filled  columns  of  the  press  every  day.  Their  every  reference 
to  the  prisoners  was  a  demand  for  their  blood.  That  they  were 
not  lynched  but  were  to  be  tried  under  the  forms  of  orderly 
legal  procedure  aroused  the  wrath  of  the  editors  and  was  taken 
by  them  as  a  personal  insult.  Their  every  mention  of  the  law- 
yers was  a  sneer.  Repeatedly  they  intimated  that  we  were 
anarchists  ourselves.  They  were  unspeakably  unfair  and  veno- 
mous. I  often  worried  and  wondered  how  under  these  condi- 
tions it  would  be  possible  for  us  to  get  an  impartial  jury,  and 
how  it  would  be  possible  for  us  to  find  lawyers  of  large  experi- 
ence and  high  standing,  such  as  we  desired  to  have  associated 
with  us,  who  would  have  the  moral  courage  to  come  into  the 
case. 

Shortly  after  the  grand  jury  had  started  to  hear  evidence, 
a  legal  defense  committee  was  organized.  Dr.  Ernst  Schmidt 
became  its  treasurer  and  actual  head.  In  the  course  of  time 
it  succeeded  in  collecting  a  considerable  sum,  sufficient  to  pay 
the  heavy  expenses  of  investigating,  court  reporting,  printing, 

16 


etc.,  and  moderate  fees  for  the  la^s-^'ers.  A  large  majority  of 
the  contributions  wa.s  in  sums  of  from  $1  to  $5.  Dr.  Schmidt 
wa^  a  highly  cHlucatiH.1  man,  one  of  the  most  i)romiiu'iit  i)hysi- 
cians  in  the  city  and  one  of  its  host  loved  citizcn.s.  lie  \va.s  a 
professing  socialist  and  thoroughly  convinced  that  there  waa 
something  radically  wrong  in  our  social  conditions  and  that 
the  workingmen,  generally  si)eaking,  were  heartlessly  evjiloited 
by  their  employers.  But  he  was  ojiposed  to  the  u.sc  of  force 
in  bringing  about  a  change  in  existing  conditions.  He  was  one 
of  that  noble  guard  of  revolutionist's  in  Germany  in  1848, 
many  of  whom  subsequently  found  their  way  to  this  country 
and  became  sliining  examples  of  good  citizensliiji  and  civic 
s])irit.  Some  few  years  before  the  time  of  which  I  am  writing 
he  was  the  candidate  of  the  socialist  jiarty  for  mayor  of  Chi- 
cago and  came  near  being  elected.  His  big  vote  came  largely 
from  citizens  outside  of  that  party  who  had  confidence  in  the 
integrity  and  wisdom  of  that  great  and  good  man.  In  the  in- 
flamed condition  of  the  pubhc  mind  it  required  moral  courage 
of  the  highest  order  for  Dr.  Schmidt  to  assume  the  headship 
of  the  defense  committee.  He  abhorred  the  HajTiiarket  crime, 
but  was  convinced  that  the  prisoners  had  had  no  liand  in  its 
commission.  He  was  thoroughly  ojiposed  to  the  advocacy  of 
force  by  these  men  in  their  speeches  and  writings  and  had  often 
expressed  this  opposition  to  Mr.  Spies,  but  believed  in  the 
purity  of  their  motives. 

-\fter  consultation  with  Mr.  Salomon  and  myself,  Dr. 
Schmidt  sought  to  retain,  first  Luther  Laflin  Mill.s,  former 
state's  attorney  of  Cook  County,  and  then  William  8.  P  orrest, 
a  very  able  man,  versed  in  all  the  technicahties  of  criminal  law 
and  absolutely  honorable.  Mr.  Mills  decHned  outright.  Mr. 
Forrest  asked  for  a  fee  wliich  went  way  beyond  the  exi)ected 
means  at  the  disposal  of  the  committee.  Dr.  Schmidt  thought 
that  both  those  gentlemen  feared  the  consequences  to  them- 
selves of  undertaking  the  defense  of  so  unpopular  a  cause,  but 
he  did  not  bhune  them  and  only  spoke  with  bitterness  of  the 

17 


vileness  of  the  press.  The  committee  finally  succeeded  in  re- 
taining Captain  W.  P.  Black,  a  leader  of  the  bar,  a  fine  orator, 
a  man  of  liberal  mind,  whose  heart  was  sure  to  be  in  the  cause. 
But  he  was  not  a  criminal  lawyer.  Captain  Black's  consent  to 
become  the  leading  counsel  in  the  case  was  nothing  short  of  an 
act  of  heroism.  He  was  the  junior  partner  in  one  of  the  most 
successful  law  firms  in  Chicago.  All  their  chents  were  out- 
standing business  men  who  were  sure  to  be  given  offense  by 
his  defending  the  anarchists.  Nothing  but  a  high  sense  of  pro- 
fessional duty  could  have  induced  him  to  come  into  the  case. 
I  may  say  here  that  after  the  conclusion  of  the  trial  and  as  a 
direct  result  of  liis  participation  in  it,  not  onlj'  was  his  law 
firm  dissolved,  but  he  lost  his  cHentage  almost  entirely,  never 
to  buQd  up  another  which  assured  him  more  than  a  moderate 
income.  He  was  at  that  time  about  forty  years  old,  a  hand- 
some, tall  man  of  military  bearing,  very  dignified  and  possess- 
ing a  powerful,  meUifluous  voice.  He  was  exceedingly  kind  to 
Mr.  Salomon  and  myself  and  treated  us  youngsters  as  though 
we  were  his  equals.  We  also  obtained  as  an  associate  Mr.  Wil- 
liam A.  Foster,  a  recent  arrival  from  Davenport,  Iowa,  who 
came  to  us  highly  recommended  as  a  skillful  trial  lawyer  and 
volunteered  his  services.  He  was  about  forty  years  old,  of 
medium  height  and  had  wavy  red  hair  and  a  red  mustache. 
He  chewed  tobacco  incessantly,  even  in  the  court  room  during 
the  trial,  and  his  aim  at  the  cuspidor  was  unfailing.  He  was 
a  likeable,  level-headed  fellow  who,  however,  rehed  more  upon 
his  native  wit  and  talent  than  upon  application  or  close  study. 
On  May  27th  the  grand  jury  presented  a  big  batch  of  indict- 
ments to  Judge  Rogers.  Their  contents  were  kept  secret  for  a 
few  days,  but  it  leaked  out  that  Spies,  Schwab,  Fielden,  Fisch- 
er, Lingg,  Engel,  Parsons,  Schnaubelt,  Sehger  and  one  Oscar 
W.  Neebe  were  indicted  for  murder.  Neither  Parsons  nor 
Schnaubelt  had  been  apprehended.  Seliger  was  never  brought 
to  trial,  but  bought  immunity  by  becoming  an  important  wit- 
ness for  the  state. 

18 


The  indictment  of  Neebe  was  a  great  sun^rise.  Not  a  word 
had  l>een  whii^iKred  aliout  the  intention  of  the  state's  attorney 
in  that  n'gjin.1.  He  hail  never  Ikhmi  arretted  or  even  molested 
until  hito  that  day.  He  w;is  relensinl  on  hail  a  few  days  later 
and  renuvined  at  large  until  the  jur>'  brought  in  its  venlict. 
Further  on  I  shall  have  occasion  to  siieak  of  the  entire  absence 
of  material  evidence  on  which  to  convict  him. 

Yielding  to  the  earnest  re<iuest  of  our  clients  we  asked  for 
a  change  of  venue  from  Jutlgo  Rogers.  We  iiroi>osed  to  Mr. 
Grinnell  that  the  case  be  transferred  to  Judge  Murray  F. 
Tuley  than  whom  this  county  never  had  an  abler  or  fairer 
judge.  But  Mr.  Grinnell  would  not  consent.  Finally  we  agreed 
on  Judge  Joseph  K.  (larj-.  Judge  Gar\'  was  a  ver>'  able,  keen 
laNsyer  and  a  fine  judge.  He  was  universally  regardtxl  as  in- 
stinctively impartial.  But  candor  comjiels  me  to  say  that  in 
this  case,  as  will  apjiear  from  the  facts  herein  recited,  he  fre- 
quently deviated  from  the  narrow  path  of  fairne-ss.  After  all 
he  was,  to  quote  Nietz.^che,  "human,  all  too  human,"  and  his 
mental  compass  was  disturbed  by  the  severe  brainstorm  of  the 
panic-stricken  ruling  class  about  him. 

On  June  10th,  at  our  first  appearance  before  Judge  Gary, 
Mr.  Grinnell,  unwilling  to  give  the  infuriated  ]niblic  a  chance 
to  cool  off,  asked  for  an  inunediate  trial.  Caj^tain  Bkck  made 
a  powerful  argimaent  for  a  postjwnement  for  at  least  a  month, 
but  Judge  Gary  set  the  case  for  June  21st. 

On  June  18th  Cajitain  Black  brought  Mrs.  Parsons  to  our 
daily  afternoon  conference.  She  was  a  handsome  mulatto,  well 
educated  and  ladylike,  though  somewhat  temperamental.  She 
told  us  she  was  regularly  receiving  conmiunications  from  her 
husband ;  he  was  working  as  a  carpenter  and  j)ainter  in  Wauke- 
shaw,  Wl'jconsin;  his  disguise  was  complete;  having  become 
prematurely  gray,  he  had  been  dyeing  his  hair  and  mu.stache 
to  a  deej)  black  for  over  ten  years;  he  had  never  worn  a  beard; 
since  fleeing  from  Chicago  he  had  cea.<ed  dyeing  and  had  grown 
a  beard;  hair,  mustache  and  beard  were  white  iis  snow;  his 

19 


own  mother  would  not  recognize  him ;  he  was  therefore  abso- 
lutely safe  from  arrest;  but  conscious  of  his  innocence  of  com- 
plicity in  the  Haymarket  crime  and  fearing  that  his  continued 
absence  might  be  construed  by  the  jury  as  a  confession  of 
guilt  and  consequently  prejudice  his  comrades,  he  was  willing 
to  surrender  himself  in  court  on  the  first  day  of  the  trial,  if 
his  wife,  after  consulting  with  us  lawyers,  should  advise  him 
to  do  so.  Captain  Black  was  enthusiastically  in  favor  of  it. 
He  had  a  strongly  developed  dramatic  instinct.  He  pictured 
to  us  in  glowing  colors  the  electrical  effect  which  Parsons'  sud- 
den appearance  would  create  in  the  courtroom  and  outside. 
He  expressed  his  conviction  that  the  presumption  of  guilt 
which  had  taken  possession  of  the  pubUc  mind  would  instantly 
change  to  a  presumption  of  innocence,  the  benefit  of  which 
would  extend  to  the  other  defendants;  that  as  regards  Parsons, 
it  was,  under  the  circumstances,  unthinkable  that  the  jury 
should  find  him  guilty  of  murder.  Mr.  Foster,  utterly  unemo- 
tional, of  a  cool,  calculating  and  perfectly  balanced  mind, 
threw  cold  water  on  Captain  Black's  proposal.  He  thought 
that  the  wellnigh  universal  feeUng  of  loathing  and  hatred 
against  the  defendants  was  still  at  fever  heat;  that  the  lawyers 
had  no  right  to  accept  Parsons'  proffered  sacrifice,  no  right  to 
gamble  with  a  human  life,  no  right  to  drag  him  from  a  place 
of  absolute  safety  into  a  situation  of  jeopardy.  Mr.  Salomon, 
highly  optimistic,  with  unbounded  confidence  in  the  strength 
of  the  theory  of  defense  which  we  had  worked  out,  sided  with 
Captain  Black.  I  begged  to  be  excused  from  expressing  an 
opinion,  on  the  ground  that  I  had  Uved  in  this  country  less 
than  three  years  and  was  not  sufficiently  famihar  with  the 
operation  of  the  American  mind.  The  upshot  of  the  discussion 
-.^^  that  Mrs.  Parsons  decided  to  have  her  husband  come  on. 
The  trial  began  on  June  21st.  The  courtroom  was  large 
but  sombre.  Numerous  poUcemen  stood  guard  at  the  entrance 
and  in  the  corridor  and  closely  scrutinized  those  seeking  admis- 
sion. With  the  exception  of  the  first  few  days,  however,  the 

20 


courtroom  was  always  crowded.  Many  reporters  for  out-of- 
town  papers  were  in  attendance,  and  naturally  all  of  the  Chi- 
cago papers  were  represented.  Directly  in  front  of,  and  some- 
what below  the  bench,  were  two  rows  of  six  seats  each  f(jr  the 
jurors.  At  right  angles  to  the  jurors'  seat^saiid  to  the  right  and 
leftof  them  were  longtables  for  the  counsel.  At  the  t;il)le  for  the""" 
prosecution  were  State's  Attorncj'  Julius  S.  (jrinncll,  his  s]Hi- 
cial  assistant,  George  C.  Ingham,  and  two  regular  assistant 
state's  attorneys,  Francis  W.  Walker  and  Edmund  Fiirthman. 
Adjoining  the  defense's  counsel  table  and  i)aralk'l  with  it  was 
a  row  of  chairs  for  the  accused. 

Mr.  Ingham  had  formerly  been  the  first  assistant  of 
Luther  Laflin  Mills  as  state's  attorney  and  was  then  his  part- 
ner. He  had  the  rej^utation  of  being  the  most  skillful  prose- 
cutor our  county  had  ever  had.  Mr.  Walker  was  a  fine  young 
man,  I  should  say  about  30  years  of  age,  ver>'  talented  and 
well  educate,  with  a  ver}'  high  pitched  voice  and  a  genial  ex- 
pression of  face  which,  however,  often  changed  suddenly  into 
a  sneer.  Mr.  Furthman  was  a  thickset  man  of  about  35,  rather 
coarse  features,  a  sinister  ex])ression,  and  a  hoarse  voice.  He 
had  recently  come  from  bookkeeping  to  the  bar.  He  never 
opened  his  mouth  during  the  trial,  but  frequently  prompted 
his  associates.  He  was  more  detective  than  lawyer. 

Immediately  after  the  oi)ening  of  the  court  the  defense 
moved  for  a  separate  trial  for  Spies,  Schwab,  Fielden  and 
Neebe.  In  support  of  our  motion  Mr.  Foster  read  an  affidavit 
which  recited  in  detail  a  mass  of  exndence  that  we  understood 
was  to  be  introduced,  which  would  be  comj^eteut  against 
Lingg,  Fischer  and  Engel,  or  against  one  or  the  other  of  them, 
but  not  so  against  their  co-defendants  who,  we  insisted,  would 
be  incalculably  prejudiced  if  all  the  defendants  were  tried  to- 
gether. After  finishing  the  reading  of  the  affidavit,  Mr.  Foster 
added:  "While  the  defense  sincerely  belie\es  that  the  court 
ought  to  grant  this  motion  in  the  interest  of  justice,  I  hardly 
ex])ect  that  it  \'.  i'l":  t<.  ul,;rlj  Judge  Oarj",  in  his  most  sarcastic 

21 


tone  and  manner  replied:  "Well,  I  shall  not  disappoint  you, 
Mr.  Foster."  A  titter  went  around  the  courtroom.  A  shock 
went  through  me  and  I  noticed  a  pained  expression  on  the 
faces  of  Captain  Black  and  Mr.  Salomon  and  of  several  of  our 
chents.  A  minute  later  Mr.  Spies,  whose  seat  was  near  mine, 
handed  me  a  slip  of  paper  Vyith  the  following,  ''What  in  hell 
does  Foster  mean?  I  thought  our  motion  was  meant  seriously. 
What  was  the  sense  of  making  it  appear  perfunctory?  A.  S." 

The  juror's  seats  were  then  filled  by  twelve  veniremen, 
and  the  rest  of  the  forenoon  was  taken  up  by  Mr.  Grinnell's 
examination  as  to  their  qualifications  for  service  on  the  jury. 
Just  before  adjournment  he  tendered  to  the  defense  a  panel 
of  four  men  satisfactory  to  the  state.  These  were  examined  by 
Mr.  Foster  in  the  afternoon  session. 

During  a  heated  argument  between  him  and  Mr.  Grinnell 
as  to  the  propriety  of  some  question — it  was  then  about  2 :  30 
— Captain  Black  quietly  left  the  courtroom.  A  few  minutes 
later,  while  the  two  lawyers,  facing  the  judge  and  with  their 
backs  to  the  entrance  door,  were  stUl  arguing,  Captain  Black 
returned  and  briskly  walked  toward  the  bench.  Leaning  upon 
his  arm  was  a  short,  slender,  blackhaired  and  black-mus- 
tached  man,  rather  good  looking,  with  an  inteUigent,  serious 
face.  From  pictures  I  had  seen  I  recognized  Mr.  Parsons. 
Captain  Black  was  about  to  address  the  court — he  was  pre- 
pared to  deliver  an  impassioned  speech  on  the  imphcations  of 
Parsons'  voluntary  surrender — when  Grinnell,  to  whom  Mr. 
Furthman  had  whispered  something,  quickly  turned  around 
and,  anticipating  the  Captain,  said  to  the  court  in  a  loud  voice : 
"Your  Honor,  I  see  Albert  R.  Parsons  in  the  courtroom.  I 
move  that  he  be  placed  in  the  custody  of  the  sheriff."  Quiver- 
ing with  anger  and  emotion,  Captain  Black  said:  "Your  mo- 
tion, Mr.  Grinnell,  is  not  only  most  ungracious  and  cruel,  it  is 
also  gratuitous.  You  see  that  Mr.  Parsons  is  here  to  surrender 
himself."  The  judge  broke  in  with:  "Mr.  Parsons  will  take 
his  seat  with  the  other  prisoners." 

22 


The  whole  incident  took  less  than  one  minute.  The  sensa- 
tion which  Cai)tain  Black  had  envisaged  died  abornin'. 

To  judge  purely  as  a  matter  of  strategy,  Mr.  Grinnell's 
alertness  and  matter-of-factnes.s  were  admirable.  But  I  have 
ne\  er  lost  the  feeUiig  that,  humanly  si)eakiiiR,  hi.s  conduct  was 
heartless  and  brutal.  I  deejily  felt  the  humiliation  of  Captain 
Black  and  the  disappointment  of  Mrs.  Parsons  who  was  in 
the  courtroom.  They  had  ex])ected  something  quite  different. 

The  imi)aneling  of  the  jvir>'  was  an  extremely  tedious  bu.si- 
ness.  It  took  21  days.  Nearly  1,000  men  were  examined.  The 
trouble  was  that  with  comparatively  few  exceptions  the  men 
brought  in  admitted  a  more  or  less  deei>-seated  prejudice 
against  the  defendants  or  a  more  or  less  definite  opinion  of 
their  guilt.  Under  the  constitution  of  IlUnois  the  accused  had 
the  "right  to  be  tried  by  an  impartial  jurj'."  A  statute  of  1874 
provides  that  in  criminal  trials  "the  fact  that  a  person  called 
as  a  juror  has  formed  an  opinion  or  impression  based  upon 
rumor  or  upon  newspaper  statements,  about  the  truth  of  which 
he  has  expressed  no  opinion,  shall  not  disqualify  him  to  serve 
as  a  juror  in  such  case,  if  he  shall,  upon  oath,  state  that  he 
beUeves  he  can  fairly  and  impartially  render  a  verdict  therein, 
in  accordance  with  the  law  and  the  evidence,  and  the  court 
shall  be  satisfied  of  the  truth  of  such  statement."  What  this 
means  is  plain  enough.  It  means  that,  generally  speaking,  an 
opinion  or  impression  based  upon  nothing  more  than  rumor 
or  newspaper  statements  shall  not  disqualify.  But  if  a  person 
has  gone  to  the  length  of  ex'pressing  an  opinion  about  the  truth 
of  such  rumor  or  newspaper  statements,  then  he  has  so  far 
committed  himself  that  he  cannot  be  regarded  as  qualified; 
and  whether  he  has  done  so  before  the  trial  or  does  so  during 
his  examination  at  the  trial,  can  manifestly  make  no  difTerence. 
It  is,  of  course,  elementary  that  no  statute  can  be  vahd  if  it 
violates  a  constitutional  provision,  and  that  no  construction 
of  a  statute  is  permissible  which  has  this  effect.  In  other  words, 
the  statute  in  question  did  not  dispense  with  the  constitu- 

23 


tional  requirement  that  every  juror  in  a  criminal  case  must  be 
impartial.  But  in  the  Anarchist  case,  in  scores  upon  scores  of 
instances,  the  court  entirely  disregarded  this  constitutional 
provision.  If  a  man  on  his  examination  said  that  he  had 
formed  an  opinion  based  upon  newspaper  statements  and  that 
he  beUeved  these  to  be  true,  or  admitted  that  from  what  he 
had  heard  and  read  about  the  case  he  beheved  the  defendants 
to  be  guilty,  or  even  that  his  opinion  of  their  guilt  was  so 
definite  that  it  would  take  strong  eviaence  to  remove  it,  or 
that  his  prejudice  against  them  was  w  deeply  rooted  that  it 
would  probably  influence  him  in  considering  the  testimony, 
Judge  Gary  held  him  to  be  qualified  if,  at  the  end  of  repeated 
lecturing,  coaxing,  cajohng  and  insinuating  by  the  court,  the 
man  would  once  declare  his  behef  that  he  could  fairly  and  im- 
partially render  a  verdict  in  the  case,  even  though  in  the  next 
breath,  when  re-examined  by  the  defense,  he  expressed  a  doubt 
about  whether  he  could. 

A  classical  illustration  of  the  attitude  of  Judge  Gary  is  the 
case  of  the  man  who  stated  he  had  formed  an  opinion  as  to 
the  guilt  of  the  defendants  which  he  had  expressed  to  others 
and  which  he  still  entertained,  and  admitted  that  this  opinion 
would  handicap  his  judgment.  After  the  judge  had  taken  this 
man  through  a  lengthy  course  of  coaxing  he  finally  said  he 
thought  he  could  give  the  defendants  a  fair  and  impartial  trial 
but  still  felt  he  would  be  handicapped  in  his  judgment.  There- 
upon Judge  Gary  said:  "Well,  that  is  a  sufficient  quaHfication 
for  a  juror  in  the  case.  Of  course,  the  more  a  man  feels  that 
he  is  handicapped,  the  more  he  will  be  guarded  against  it." 
Freudians  might  agree  with  this  conclusion  under  certain  con- 
ditions, but  it  is  certainly  contrary  to  human  experience. 

After  rulings  of  this  sort  had  been  repeatedly  made  by 
Judge  Gary  during  the  first  two  days,  a  sheet  of  paper  with  the 
following  was  handed  up  to  me:  "In  taking  a  change  of  venue 
from  Judge  Rogers  to  Lord  Jeffries,  did  not  the  defendants 
jump  from  the  frying  pan  into  the  fire?  Parsons." 

24 


Under  the  statute  ever}'  defendant  in  a  trial  for  murder 
is  entitled  to  twenty  peremptor>'  clinllpngcs;  that  is  to  say,  the 
eight  defendants  jointly  had  100  ])crcini)tor>'  challcnp;('s.  A 
pereni))tory  challenge  is  one  which  may  be  exercised  without 
assigning  any  cause.  In  order  to  got  rid  of  a  man  who  was 
plainly  not  impartial  but  whom  the  judge  declared  to  be  quali- 
fied, we  had  to  exercise  a  ])cremptor}'  challenge.  So  frotjucntly 
did  we  have  to  do  thi.s  during  the  first  few  days  that  we  feared 
all  our  peremptory'  challenges  would  be  exhausted  long  before 
the  jury  was  comjilcted.  We  realized  that  it  was  idle  to  make 
the  efi'ort  to  get  a  truly  imjiartial  jury.  Therefore,  when,  what 
hap]iened  rarely  enough,  there  came  a  man  who,  though  ad- 
mitting prejudice,  showed  some  degree  of  fairness  and  candor, 
we  reluctantly  accepted  him  after  unsuccessfully  challenging 
him  for  cause  and  saAed  a  ])eremptor>'  challenge. 

By  thus  practicing  economy  we  reached  a  stage  when 
eleven  jurors  had  been  accepted  by  both  sides  and  we  still  had 
43  peremptory'  challenges  left.  Now,  under  a  previous  decision 
of  the  Supreme  Court,  the  rulings  of  Judge  Gary  in  disallowing 
our  challenges  for  cause,  no  matter  how  clearly  erroneous  they 
might  have  been,  would  not  furnish  grounds  for  reversal,  un- 
less we  exhausted  all  our  peremptorj'  challenges. 

We  were  the  guardians  of  eight  lives,  and  in  order  not  to 
lose  the  right,  in  case  of  a  conviction,  to  have  the  judgment 
set  aside  by  the  Supreme  Court  on  the  ground  of  Judge  Gar}''s 
erroneous  rulings,  we  decided  thenceforth  peremptorily  to 
challenge  every  talesman  whom  the  judge  should  rule  to  be 
quaUfied. 

The  very  first  talesman  to  come  up  for  examination  after 
we  had  used  our  160th  peremptory'  challenge  was  a  man  by 
the  name  of  Sanford.  He  admitted  that  from  all  he  had  heard 
and  read  he  was  decidedly  prejudiced  against  Socialists  and 
had  an  opinion  as  to  the  guilt  of  the  defendants  on  the  charge 
of  throwing  the  bomb.  Asked  whether  he  had  ever  said  to 
any  one  whether  or  not  he  believed  the  newspaper  statements 

25 


to  be  true,  he  answered:  "  I  have  never  expressed  it  exactly 
in  that  way,  but  still  I  have  no  reason  to  think  they  were 
false."  This  was  pretty  nearly  tantamount  to  the  expression 
of  his  beUef  in  the  truth  of  the  statements  of  the  newspapers. 
A  judge,  jealous  of  the  constitutional  right  of  the  defendants 
to  be  tried  by  an  impartial  jurj^,  a  judge  such  as  Chief  Justice 
Marshall  in  the  case  of  Aaron  Burr,  would  certainly  have  al- 
lowed us  to  challenge  this  man  for  cause.  At  the  same  time  I 
admit  there  is  room  for  argument  that  his  answers  on  the 
whole  placed  him  in  the  twihght  zone  between  competency 
and  incompetency  and  that  he  was  not  clearly  disquaUfied 
under  the  statute.  Assuredly,  however,  he  was  objectionable 
to  the  defendants,  and  we  would  never  have  voluntarily  ac- 
cepted him.  Our  challenge  for  cause  was  overruled.  He  was 
forced  upon  us  and  became  the  twelfth  juror. 

Under  these  circumstances  we  confidently  expected  a  re- 
versal. But  the  Supreme  Court  went  considerably  out  of  its 
way  in  order  to  defeat  us.  First,  it  inquired  into  our  motives 
for  exercising  our  last  43  peremptory  challenges  and  concluded 
V  that  many  of  them  were  exercised  "arbitrarily  and  without 
apparent  cause."  We  then  believed,  and  I  still  beUeve,  that 
it  was  entirely  outside  of  the  province  of  the  Supreme  Court 
to  make  such  an  inquiry  and  that  its  conclusion  was  irrelevant, 
because  it  is  of  the  very  essence  of  a  peremptory  challenge 
that  it  may  be  exercised  "arbitrarily  and  without  apparent 
cause."  Within  the  limit  of  160  it  was  the  absolute  right  of 
the  defendants  to  challenge  a  man  peremptorily  even  if  they 
merely  disliked  the  tone  of  his  voice,  the  color  of  his  hair  or 
the  shape  of  his  nose.  Secondly,  the  Supreme  Court  held  that 
we  could  not  complain  of  Judge  Gary's  rulings  unless,  after 
our  peremptory  challenges  were  exhausted,  a  clearly  disquaU- 
fied juror  were  forced  upon  us.  The  Supreme  Court  entirely 
overlooked  the  fact  that  the  right  peremptorily  to  challenge 
a  qualified  talesman  is  a  most  substantial  right,  estabhshed  by 
the  legislature  as  essential  to  the  securing  of  an  impartial  jury. 

26 


We  were  entitled  to  160  i>oremi)ton*  challonp««,  but  this  num- 
ber wa-s  piratly  rtNlucotl  throuRh  tl»e  ruliuKs  of  JudRo  ('iur>' 
which  comjH'Ued  us  in  scores  of  cases  to  use  up  a  jwrenifitory 
challenge  where  our  challenge  for  cauM?  should  have  be^n  al- 
lowed. But  for  these  rulings  we  would  not  have  hUmhI  Ixjfore 
Mr.  Sunford.  stri|)j>ed  of  all  our  iMTeinptor)*  cimllengosj  and 
jMjwerless  to  prevent  his  getting  on  the  jun.'. 

TTn  July  15th  the  jur>'  was  completed  and  Mr.  Crinnell 
made  his  opening  statement  for  the  prosecution.  The  evidence 
began  to  be  introduced  on  the  following  morning  and  was  not 
closed  until  August  10th,  although  we  had  two  scssiijus  of 
three  hours  each  on  ever>'  week  day. 

"Trie  evidence  was  very  voluminous.  Some  of  the  impor* 
tant  facts  have  already  been  related.  For  the  rest  I  must  con- 
tent myself  with  touching  the  high  i»oint.s.  The  wort!  "Huhe" 
under  the  heading  "Ix>tter-Box"  api)eared  in  the  Arbeiier 
Zcitung  on  the  afternoon  of  May  4th.  Spies  himself  wrote 
out  the  copy  for  the  compositor's  nK)m.  He  testified  that  he 
published  this  sinister  signal,  without  knowing  its  significance, 
pursuant  to  a  request  which  came  to  him  by  mail.  When  he 
learned  of  its  meaning  later  that  afternoon  through  one  Ilau, 
advertising  manager  of  his  paper,  he  jjrocured  I^u  imme- 
diately to  get  word  to  the  members  of  the  armed  groups  that 
the  signal  had  been  put  in  by  mistake.  According  to  the 
resolution  at  the  Grcif's  Hall  meeting  it  was  to  have  been 
in.^rted  only  in  case  a  downright  revolution  had  commenced. 
There  was  no  evidence  that  anybody  who  knew  of  its  signifi- 
cance acted  upon  that  signal.  Nevertheless,  Spies's  connec- 
tion with  its  insertion  was  a  most  damaging  circumstance  and 
I  doubt  whether  the  jur>'  believed  his  ex]jlanation. 

There  was  evidence  tending  to  show  that  Engel,  the  propo- 
nent of  the  resolution  adopted  at  the  Greif 's  Hall  meeting,  was 
a  rabid  anarchist,  had  experimented  with  d^^lamite  and  other 
explosives  and  was  not  alx)ve  tlirowing  a  bomb  at  the  police, 
if  the  occasion  appeared  to  him  to  call  for  it.  But  tliere  was 

37 


no  pretense  that  Engel  was  at  the  Haymarket  meeting  at  or 
for  some  time  before  the  time  the  bomb  was  thrown.  He  was 
quietly  at  home  with  a  httle  party  of  friends,  not  anticipating 
any  violence  or  conflict.  If  the  Haymarket  meeting  had  been 
planned  with  reference  to  carrying  out  the  program  of  action 
discussed  or  agreed  upon  at  the  Greif's  Hall  meeting,  the 
natural  thing  for  Engel  and  his  associates,  when  the  news 
was  brought  to  them  of  the  outbreak  at  the  Haymarket, 
would  have  been  to  go  and  inaugurate  their  movement 
against  the  police.  The  fact  that  nothing  of  the  sort  was 
done  and  that  no  suggestion  of  that  sort  came  from  Engel 
shows  that  the  event  at  the  Haymarket  was  a  complete  sur- 
prijg.  to  him. 

Lingg  was  a  practical  bomb  maker.  With  the  assistance  of 
SeUger  he  manufactured  about  forty  bombs  during  the  day- 
time on  May  4th.  In  the  evening  he  and  Seliger  took  a  small 
trunk  fiUed  with  bombs  to  a  saloon  located  about  a  mile  and 
a  half  from  the  Haymarket  and  deposited  it  in  a  hallway  in 
the  rear  of  the  saloon.  Later  that  night,  while  Lingg  and 
Seliger  were  walking  in  the  neighborhood  of  the  Larrabee  Street 
PoUce  Station,  Lingg  became  excited  and  proposed  to  Seliger 
an  attack  upon  the  station.  But  they  did  notliing  of  the  kind 
and  walked  home.  It  was  after  eleven  o'clock  that  night  that 
Lingg  first  became  aware  that  the  word  "Ruhe"  had  been 
inserted  in  the  Arbeiter  Zeitung. 

There  was  evidence  tending  to  show  that  the  bombs  manu- 
factured by  Lingg  were  of  a  pecuhar  construction  and  that  the 
bomb  which  was  exploded  at  the  Haymarket  was  of  the  same 
construction.  But  even  if  it  were  certain  that  the  bomb  thrown 
at  the  Haymarket  had  been  manufactured  by  Lingg,  stiU  this 
fact,  standing  alone,  would  not  have  made  him  guilty  if  the 
bomb  was  thrown  by  a  third  person  acting  upon  liis  own  re- 
sponsibihty  and  without  Lingg's  knowledge,  advice  or  con- 
scious aid.  The  testimony  of  all  the  witnesses  regarding 
Lingg's  actions  showed  that  whatever  he  did,  whatever  he 

28 


may  have  attonipt^l,  intondcnl  or  proi)o<>c(l  on  the  North  Side 
that  night,  he  had  no  knowledge  or  susi)icioi»  that  a  bomb 
would  be  throwii  at  the  Ha>nnarket  meeting. 

There  was  not  a  ])article  of  evidence  tending  to  show  that 
Parsons  or  Fielden  knew  anything  about  the  Clrcif'.s  Hall  meet- 
ing or  the  action  there  taken  or  that  they  knew  that  the  Hay- 
market  nieeting  had  been  called  until  after  it  had  been  oi)ened 
and  a  messenger  reached  them  with  a  request  from  Spies  that 
they  come  there  at  once  and  address  the  meeting. 

As  regards  Neebe  no  evidence  whatever  tending  to  con- 
nect him  with  the  Haymarket  crime  was  introduced. 

The  state,  realizing  the  necessity  of  identifying  the  l)omb- 
thrower  as  a  member  of  the  alleged  conspiracy,  and  in  order 
directly  to  connect  Spies,  Schwal)  and  Fischer  with  the  throw- 
ing of  the  bomb,  jiut  two  witnesses  upon  the  stand.  One  of 
these,  a  man  by  the  name  of  Thomi)son,  testified  that  while 
waiting  for  the  speaking  to  begin  at  the  Hajinarket,  he  over- 
heard a  conversation  between  Spies  and  Schwab  in  which  the 
words  "pistols"  and  "police"  were  used  and  Spies  asked 
Schwab,  "Do  you  think  one  is  enough  or  had  we  better  go  and 
get  more?";  that  some  few  minutes  later  he  had  heard  Schwab 
say  to  Si)ies,  "Now,  if  they  come,  we  will  give  it  to  them,"  to 
which  S])ies  replied  that  he  thought  they  were  afraid  to  bother 
with  them;  that  somewhat  later  Spies,  Schwab  and  a  third 
man  got  close  together  and  something  was  passed  by  Spies  to 
the  third  man  who  put  it  in  his  coat  pocket;  that  a  httle  later 
Spies  got  up  on  the  s]>eakers'  wagon  and  the  tliird  man  mount- 
ed after  him;  and  that  the  witness  noticed  this  third  man  after- 
wards sitting  on  the  wagon,  keeping  his  hand  in  his  pocket. 
Shown  a  photograph  of  Schnaubelt,  the  witness  said  he 
thought  that  was  the  picture  of  the  third  man.  No  particle 
of  this  testimony  was  corroborated  by  anybody,  and  Thomi> 
son's  inherently  improbable  story  of  tliis  musical  comedy 
conspiracy  formed  in  the  open  street  was  thorouglily  exploded 
by  the  testimony  of  a  number  of  unimj^cachcd  witnesses  and 

20 


by  many  facts  and  circumstances  in  evidence  which  showed  it 
to  be  a  pure  fabrication. 

One  Harry  L.  Gihner  testified  that  he  was  standing  in 
Crane's  alley,  a  short  distance  from  the  speaker's  wagon,  when 
the  police  appeared;  that  Fischer  and  a  man  whom  he  did  not 
know  were  standing  together  a  few  feet  away  and  right  across 
the  alley  from  him;  that  Spies  came  down  from  the  wagon, 
joined  those  two  men,  and  to  quote  Gilmer:  "He  Ut  a  match 
and  touched  it  off,  something  or  other;  the  fuse  commenced 
to  fizzle,"  whereupon  the  unknown  man  took  two  steps  for- 
ward and  tossed  that  something  into  the  street;  he  was  a  man 
about  five  feet  ten  inches  high;  the  photograph  of  Schnaubelt 
shown  the  witness  was  a  picture  of  the  man  who  threw  the 
bomb. 

Gilmer's  story  was  not  supported  by  a  single  other  wit- 
ness. He  contradicted  himself  time  and  time  again  in  im- 
portant particulars.  His  testimony  differed  essentially  from 
statements  he  had  made  to  the  poUce  in  the  presence  of  news- 
paper reporters  within  two  daj^s  after  the  Haymarket  meeting. 
The  evidence  without  contradiction  showed  that  Schnaubelt 
was  six  feet  three  inches  high.  Twelve  witnesses  testified  that 
Spies  did  not  get  off  the  speakers'  wagon  until  the  bomb  ex- 
ploded. Fischer  was  shown  to  have  been  at  that  very  time  at 
a  saloon  more  than  half  a  block  distant.  Sixteen  witnesses, 
among  them  a  number  called  by  the  state,  testified  that  the 
bomb  was  not  thrown  from  the  alley  but  from  a  place  on  the 
sidewalk  variously  estimated  as  from  ten  to  forty  feet  south 
of  the  alley.  Finally,  nine  substantial  and  reputable  citizens 
of  Chicago,  Uving  in  the  neighborhood  in  which  Gilmer  had 
been  hving,  said  they  knew  Gilmer;  that  his  general  reputation 
for  truth  and  veracity  in  that  neighborhood  was  bad  and  they 
would  not  beUeve  him  under  oath.  • 

That  both  Thompson's  and  Gilmer's  stories  were  tissues 
of  Ues  was  the  opinion  of  the  jury.  Within  a  year  after  the 
case  had  been  finally  disposed  of  Mr.  J.  H.  Brayton,  a  pubhc 

30 


school  teaclicr,  and  A.  II.  Rood,  a  i)iaiir)  niaiiufacturor,  two  of 
the  jurors,  told  me  so.  Thoy  further  told  nie  that  the  verdict 
of  guilty  was  based  upon  the  belief  of  the  jury  that  there  had 
been  a  conspiracy  to  overthrow  the  law;  that  the  defondanta 
had  been  connected  with  tiiat  con.si)iracy  and  that  the  throw- 
ing of  the  bomb  had  grown  out  of  it;  that  believing  thu.s  they 
had  no  choice  under  the  instructions  of  the  judge  \mt  to  find 
the  verdict  which  they  did.  It  is  worthy  of  note  in  this  connec- 
tion that  the  Supreme  Court  in  .sustaining  this  verdict  declared 
that  whether  Thomji-son's  and  Clilmer's  stories  were  true  were 
questions  for  the  jurj'  to  decide;  and  that  court  ai)i)arently 
assumed  that  the  jurj-  had  believed  them  to  be  true. 

Just  a  word  as  to  the  evidence  regarding  the  general  con- 
spiracy to  overthrow  the  law,  which  took  up  about  four-fifths 
of  all  the  evidence  introduced  by  the  state.  It  is  true  and  it 
would  be  idle  to  attemjit  to  minimize  the  fact  that  the  jilat- 
form  of  the  International,  which  was  frequently  published  in 
the  columns  of  the  Arbciter  Zeiiung  as  well  as  of  The  Alarm, 
declared  its  object  to  be  the  "destruction  of  the  existing  class 
domination  by  all  means,  i.e.,  through  energetic,  inexorable, 
revolutionary  and  international  activity" ;  that  both  these  par 
pers  in  their  editorials,  and  Spies,  Schwab,  Fielden  and  Parsons 
in  frequent  speeches,  had  continuously  advocated  these  doc- 
trines and  urged  the  workingmen  to  arm  themselves  against 
the  inevitable  conflict  with  the  forces  of  capitalism ;  that  a  cer- 
tain book  by  Johann  Most,  entitled,  "Science  of  Revolutionary 
Warfare,"  containing  similar  instruction  and  cjiiical  sugges- 
tions of  the  most  revolting  character  regarding  the  manner  in 
which  revolutionar>'  deeds  should  be  accomjilished  with  the 
least  danger  to  the  revolutionists,  was  frequently  quoted  from 
in  those  papers;  that  copies  of  that  book  were  sold  at  picnics 
and  meetings  held  under  the  auspices  of  the  International  and 
were  kept  in  the  librar>'  of  the  general  committee  of  that  or- 
ganization, located  in  the  Arbciter  Zeiiung  building.  But,  how- 
ever loathsome  and  outrageous  all  this  propaganda  may  ap- 

31 


Mr.  Grinnell,  who  was  the  last  to  address  the  jury,  was 
guilty  of  many  improprieties.  He  frequently  referred  to  the 
defendants  as  "loathsome  murderers,"  "organized  assassins," 
a  "lot  of  wretches."  He  said  it  was  one  step  from  repubU- 
canism  to  anarchy  and  that  it  was  for  the  jury  to  say  by  their 
verdict  whether  that  step  should  be  taken.  He  said  that 
anarchy  was  on  trial;  that  the  defendants  were  on  trial  for 
treason  (!)  as  well  as  murder,  and  that  there  was  only  one 
penalty  for  treason  and  that  was  death.  He  repeatedlj^  went 
outside  of  the  record  iu  an  effort  to  bolster  up  the  testimony 
of  liis  witnesses,  especially  that  of  the  thoroughly  discredited 
Gilmer. 

The  latter  impropriety  deserves  more  than  passing  men- 
tion. In  his  opening  statement  to  the  jury  Mr.  Grinnell  said 
nothing  about  three  men  being  concerned  in  the  throwing  of 
the  bomb.  His  language  was:  "We  will  show  you  that  a  man 
who  had  up  to  that  moment  been  on  the  wagon,  went  into 
the  alley,  hghted  the  bomb  and  threw  it."  Mr.  Grinnell  spoke 
of  only  one  man  and,  without  giving  his  name,  referred  of 
course  to  Schnaubelt.  This  accorded  with  Gilmer's  original 
story  to  the  pohce.  But  upon  the  witness  stand  Gilmer  told 
an  entirely  different  story  in  which  he  connected  Spies  and 
Fischer  wdth  the  act  of  throwing  the  bomb.  Now,  in  the  final 
arguments  the  defense  made  a  strong  point  of  this  discrepancy 
as  not  only  showing  that  Gihner  was  a  har  but  also  that  the 
prosecution — I  confess  we  suspected  the  fine  ItaUan  hand  of 
Mr.  Furthman — must  have  coached  liim.  And  Mr.  Grinnell, 
apparently  fearing  the  effect  of  this  point  upon  the  jury,  told 
them  in  his  closing  argument  that  Gihner  had  always  told  the 
state's  attorney  the  same  story  as  he  told  on  the  stand;  that 
he,  Mr.  Grinnell,  had  been  inaccurate  in  his  opening  statement 
and  that  his  associates  had  found  fault  with  him  in  the  office 
immediately  afterwards  for  this  inaccuracy.  Comment  upon 
this  conduct  is  superfluous. 

Improprieties  of  this  sort  had  repeatedly  been  held  by  the 

34 


Supreme  Court  to  be  grounds  for  reversal.  We  noted  our 
objections  to  these  remarks  and  called  ujwn  the  court  to  re- 
prove or  correct  the  state's  attorney,  but  Judge  Gar>''s  only 
reaction  was  liis  stock  i)hrase,  "Save  your  point,"  meaning 
that  the  record  may  show  an  exception. 

The  burden  of  all  the  arguments  for  the  defense  was  that 
so  long  as  the  man  who  threw  the  bomb  wius  unknowni,  un- 
identified and  unindividuated,  it  was  impossible  to  tell,  and 
it  was  not  permissible  to  guess,  that  he  had  ever  read  or  heard 
or  been  indirectly  influenced  by  any  of  the  propaganda  carried 
on  by  the  defendants,  or  that  he  was  a  member  of  the  Inter- 
national, or  that  he  knew  anything  about  the  actions  or  pur- 
poses of  the  Greif's  Hall  meeting  or  had  any  connection  what- 
ever ^^•ith  the  defendants  or  any  of  them;  and  that  therefore 
the  defendants  could  not  be  held  responsible  for  his  crime.  I 
have  never  ceased  to  be  certain  of  the  soundness  of  this  con- 
tention. But  Judge  Gary's  instructions  to  the  jurj' — subse- 
quently approved  by  the  Supreme  Court — were  to  the  con- 
trar\'.  He  required  the  jur>',  before  finding  the  defendant? 
guilty,  to  believe  that  the  bomb  had  been  thro^^^l  by  a  "mem- 
ber of  the  conspiracy,"  but  expressly  permitted  them  so  to 
beheve  even  though  the  bomb  thrower  was  an  utterly  un- 
identified and  unindividuated  person. 

-_  The  case  went  to  the  jury  on  the  afternoon  of  August  19th. 
Its  verdict  was  brought  in  in  the  morning  of  August  20.  As 
everj'body  knows,  the  jurj'  found  all  the  eight  defendants 
guilty  of  murder.  Xeebe's  punishment  was  fixed  at  fifteen 
years  in  the  penitentiarj';  the  other  seven  defendants  were 
condemned  to  death. 

The  rest  of  the  stor>'  can  be  told  briefly.  In  due  course  our 
motion  for  a  new  trial  was  overruled  l.»y  Judge  Gar>'.  All  the 
defendants,  in  reply  to  the  question  whether  they  had  any- 
thing to  say  why  sentence  should  not  be  pronounced  against 
them,  delivered  formal  addresses,  several  of  them  quite 
lengthy.  They  occupied  altogether  nearly  two  days.  All  of 

35 


these  addresses  were  defiant  in  tone.  Some  of  them,  notably 
those  of  Spies,  Parsons,  and  Fielden  were  most  eloquent.  They 
make  excellent  reading.  Thereupon  on  October  9,  1886,  the 
judge  pronounced  sentence  in  accordance  "«ith  the  verdict. 

The  case  was  removed  to  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  state 
and  was  argued  there  in  ]March,  1887.  Elaborate  printed  briefs 
and  argiunents  were  filed  by  both  sides.  The  case  was  argued 
orally  by  Attorney  General  George  Hunt,  Mr.  Grinnell  and 
]Mr.  Ingham  on  behah  of  the  State,  and  bj'  Leonard  Swett, 
the  friend  and  erstwhile  associate  of  Abraham  Lincoln  at  the 
Illinois  bar.  Captain  Black  and  myseU  on  behalf  of  the  defend- 
ants. On  September  14,  1887,  the  Supreme  Court  affirmed  the 
judgment  of  the  lower  coiul.^ 

An  abortive  attempt  was  made  by  Captain  Black  and 
Mr.  Salomon,  who  obtained  the  assistance  of  Mr.  Roger  A. 
Prj'or,  J.  Randolph  Tucker  and  Gen.  Benjamin  F.  Butler,  all 
lawyers  of  national  reputation,  to  secure  a  re\-iew  of  the  case 
by  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  L'nited  States.  This  court,  how- 
ever, on  November  2,  1887,  dechned  to  issue  a  writ  of  error. 

The  last  possible  legal  remedy  ha\Tng  been  exhausted, 
nothing  was  left  but  an  appeal  for  executive  clemenc3^  A  peti- 
tion for  this  purpose,  signed  bj'  thousands  of  persons,  among 
them  leading  business  and  professional  men  and  men  of  letters 
in  America  and  England,^  was  submitted  to  Governor  Richard 
J.  Oglesby.  Of  the  defendants  only  Fielden  and  Schwab  peti- 
tioned the  governor  for  a  commutation  of  their  sentences. 
Parsons  was  urged  by  nmnerous  friends  to  join  them  and  re- 
ceived an  intimation  from  the  governor  that  his  sentence 

1  -Spies  V.  People  122  HI.  1. 

2  The  extent  of  the  interest  awakened  abroad  in  the  Anar- 
chist Case  is  e\-idenced  by  a  letter  from  WiUiam  Morris  to 
Robert  Browning.  Through  the  courtesy  of  Air.  Lessing  Rosen- 
thal of  the  Chicago  Bar  and  a  member  of  The  Chicago  Literary 
Club,  in  whose  possession  is  the  original,  a  facsimile  of  that  letter 
appears  in  this  brochure. 

36 


KEIMSCOTT    House, 

UPTEB    MALL, 


HAMMERSMITH. 

tUi^  cufjt  wc^^  2^"::^^  >^-2i  ih^^6>7f^r^ 
irJa^  /'Iri^iZe^  ^  ./a*^^  <?7t^/t  /^^.^ 

f  ^t;  ih^trf'''''/^^^--H.^f-tct~ly  ^<f*^  /Cac<£.  ^^^A^u^ 


,^-,^     *?<r/f:    t/r*t;^    7!f(^U£c-^    J^c^      ec?  ^Jv^ 


<^ 


>, 


A. 


4 

HA.y<nv-  Urn  ^^' 
}\jJJ  '/Xkz   if    tf^ 

fir  hejRo  hx  -mz 


-yc^r.     /a^  ^.iii..af  l^~i<r^lt  (rf'^'^y^',  iJ 
c,^K/.j^{ntnLu:      /^^  cL^pUitr  }):r^u...  '^MjQ 

^-  ^  ^^^^  M^!^  'hu.if,^  ^{luru^  tyr^ 

.  ,  ^r>u  fu^/JZ htrt^ri,    frU^M  A.-^//.*A 


THIS  PAPER  WAS  WRITTEN  FOR  THE  CHICAGO  LITER- 
ARY CLUB  AND  WAS  READ  BEFORE  THE  CLUB  ON 
MONDAY  EVENLNC.  THE  THIRD  OF  MAY,  NINE- 
TEEN HUNDRED  AND  TWENTY-SIX.  EDITION, 
FIVE  HrNDRF:D  AND  SEVENTY  COPIER  PRINTED 
FOR  MEMBEItS  OF  THE  CLUB  IN  THl":  MONTH  OF 
JANUARY,  NINETEEN  HUNDRED  AND  TWENTY 
SEVEN. 


Printed  By 
The  Univcnity  of  Chicago  Pkm 


i 


"vERSITYOFILLlNOIS-UHBANA 

|SSncesoftheS«stcase 


'aT^-  -  .  -    .«.».*.   -  -  ^ 


